Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

Norwegian and Danish crime writers' works in English

Which Norwegian crime writers has had their work been translated to English? Which Danish crime writers has had their work been translated to English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.93 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See the publishers Stockholm Text for a number of names. Bielle (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Those all appear to be Swedish. For whatever reason, there seem to be many more Swedish detective story writers than Norwegians or Danes. The only one I am familiar with is Peter Høeg, the author of the bestseller Smilla's Sense of Snow, who is Danish. You can find a few more names listed in our article on the Glass Key award, though. Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list at Amazon of Danish writers, and a reference book on Scandinavian mystery writers in general. Bielle (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's a column on Nordic mystery writers with names from Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Bielle (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jo Nesbø is another. Mikenorton (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Let him speak up now or be silent for ever"

Hello L.H. ! I recently witnessed a British marriage religious ceremony in a Lutheran temple, and was disappointed not to hear that formula, so popularised by the film Four Weddings and a Funeral . Has that picturesque rite (and the little suspense it conveys) disappeared ? . Thanks beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The variation I've heard in movies/TV is "Speak now or forever hold your peace". However, I haven't actually heard it in any weddings I've attended here in the US. I suspect that priests/ministers are reluctant to invite objections, as that could lead to trouble (and, seriously, if you have an objection you shouldn't wait until they are standing at the altar, should you ?). StuRat (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So many "shoulds", Stu. If only the lives of others could be as well organised and predictable as yours. What's your secret? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The formula is in the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer: "if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace." [1]. It certainly hasn't disappeared, since it survives into the modern Anglican prayerbook, Common Worship: "I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now." [2]. In addition, the same request is asked three times of the congregation on Sundays before the wedding as part of the banns of marriage. I am interested to know more about where you attended this wedding, though: I don't know of any major denomination in the UK calling itself Lutheran, and I don't know of any Lutherans who claim to have temples. Marnanel (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This injunction is still part of the Anglican marriage service. The form of words in the Common Worship service is "I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now" [3]. However, I don't believe it has any legal significance, so it won't necessarily be part of marriage ceremonies in other denominations or religions, or secular ceremonies. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(super edit conflict) Those words are definitely part of the Order of Matrimony in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (revised in 1662 after the Stuart Restoration), and I think probably carried over into the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The banns of marriage were proclaimed in church on several successive weeks in order to allow anyone who might know of a legal or religious impediment to the forthcoming marriage (such as an intended spouse's existing marriage or a family relationship like uncle-niece that fell within the prohibited degrees of marriage) to speak out. The very last chance to bring up such an objection was provided during the marriage ceremony before the actual marriage was performed. I'll dig up some supporting references ( which another editor has apparently already found in the meantime). ¶ My 1999 Whitaker's Almanack says of Lutherans on pages 417-18 that "in Great Britain there are 27,000 members, 45 ministers and 100 churches" and that the English-speaking congregations adhere either to the Lutheran Church in Great Britain–United Synod or to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England. The Lutheran Council of Great Britain (30 Thanet St., WC1H 9QH) represents the United Synod and "most of the various national congregations". —— Shakescene (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

¶ Here are some relevant words from the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, ordained by Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) shortly after she succeeded her Roman Catholic sister Queen Mary I of England (1553-58), and familiar to me because I read parts of this service over ten summers while performing as an actor in renaissance faires:

FIRST, the banes [banns] must be asked thre severall Sondaies or holy daies, in the tyme of service, the people beyng present, after the accustomed maner.
   And yf the persons that would be maryed dwell in diverse Paryshes, the banes must be asked in both Parishes and the Curate of the one Paryshe shall not solempnize matrimonye betwyxt them, wythout a certifycate of the banes beyng thryse asked, from the Curate of the other Parysh. At the date appoincted for solempnizacyon of Matrimonye, the persones to be maryed shal come into the body of the Churche, wyth theyr frendes and neighbours. And there the Pryest shall thus saye.

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony,...
...Therefore if any man can shewe any just cause, why thei may not lawfully be joyned together let hym now speake, or els hereafter for ever holde his peace.

And also speakynge to the persons that shalbe maryed, he shall saie.

I REQUIRE and charge you (as you wil aunswere at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secretes of all hartes shalbe disclosed) that if either of you doe knowe any impedyment, why ye may not be lawfully joyned together in Matrimony, that ye confesse it. For be ye well assured, that so many as be coupled together, otherwyse than Goddes worde doeth allowe, are not joyned together by God, neither is their Matrimonye lawfull.

At whyche day of Maryage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in matrymony by Gods law, or the lawes of thys realme, and wyll be bound, and sufficient sureties with him to the parties, or els put in a cautyon to the ful value of suche charges, as the persons to be maryed do susteine to prove hys allegation: then the solempnization must be deferred unto suche tyme as the truthe be tried. If no impedyment be alledged, then shall the curate saye...

The Book of Common Prayer - 1559: THE FOURME OF SOLEMPNIZACION OF MATRIMONYE.

—— Shakescene (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. This site also has an enormous list of on-line Church of England Prayer Book versions from 1549 (Edward VI) to the uncompleted present project. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, Lutheran places of worship are usually called churches, not temples. It's only in France that I've ever encountered the peculiar custom of designating non-Catholic churches 'temples' (although I understand that a Spanish captain landing in South-West England in the 16th century called the local Anglican church a mosque).

I'm familiar with the old form for reading the banns, from my previous (CofE) church. The wording is pretty much this (from memory): "I publish the banns of marriage between N, of (this parish/the parish of X) and Y, (also of this parish/of the same parish/of the parish of Y). If any of you know of any cause or just impediment why these two persons may not be joined together (in holy matrimony), ye are to declare it. This is for the (first/second/third and last) time of asking."

I don't know if the familiar Hollywood formula ending "Speak now or forever hold your peace" has ever appeared verbatim in the main marriage rite of any Christian denomination - it may be a deliberately generic variation on the text of the Book of Common Prayer. Trying to Google for the answer simply turns up dozens of people convinced that the phrase is really "hold your piece", and showing themselves unwilling to be persuaded otherwise, even by centuries-old texts to the contrary. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all L.H. (Learned Humanitarians) , my cup overflows ! As I ought to have added, the marriage took place in France. Where, if you are catholic you attend "l’église", the church, - and if protestant, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, you go to "le temple". It was a Lutheran church, about 90 British people were there, apparently rather on the hedonistic-atheist side for the most part of them, and there was a jolly good feast after the service. Glad my question arose your interest, and as you seem to be good specialists, could you please consider my following question, about a (would be ? ) prescription of Martin Luther’s. Thanks beforehand, and sorry for my misuse of the word "husbandry" (though, considering the roots of the word, I maybe wasn’t so grossly erring, wasn’t I ?…).T.y. Arapaima (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that it is still legally possible to get married using the Book of Common Prayer service (but the 1663 version which is rather more intelligible than the earlier one quoted above), although finding a priest willing to do it might be an issue, as most now believe that making vows in modern English is the right course, however prosaic. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I always wanted to use the medieval one, which included the wife promising "to be buxon and bonere in bed and atte borde". They wouldn't allow it though. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, a similar formulation is in the civil wedding ceremony. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the formula still there, it is a legal requirement in both BCP (older English) and Common Worship (current English) services in England and Wales. If some muppet speaks up, the minister must stop and investigate the alleged impediment, to everyone's great annoyance. Of course, there are very few legal impediments (close relatives, or already married) so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The purpose of the Banns of marriage is to stop such a problem happening. I once was at a Chinese wedding where the question was asked, and many people shouted out in response. I was shocked, because I was expecting silence. Then I realized that the Mandarin wording had the form 'Is there or is there not any lawful impediment....?", to which the congregation politely roared, "There is not!" Matt's talk 10:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Martin Luther and good husbandry

Hello L.H. ! I have recently been told by that Martin Luther advocated "at least 3 conjugal intercourses per week for a marriage to be a happy one, especially if the wife was young". Are there any written proofs of that assertion ? Thanks beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I know some farmers who take that advice seriously. It's called animal husbandry. Who or what is "L.H.", btw? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lutherheads ? :-) StuRat (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC) . No : "Learned Humanitarians" ! Aren't used to it by now ;-)?

Apparently "Learned Humanitarians" - see the previous question about wedding services. Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought "husbandry" meant "management of couple life" , & I see that actually it means "farm management". Anyway, my question stays : did Luther write it ? Arapaima (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Luther's sermons on the Estate of Marriage mention nothing so specific. (It was an interesting peruse of someone I would never otherwise have read.) Perhaps he has written elsewhere of the specifics, but I couldn't find any evidence of it. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a quote floating around on the internet, and is found even in some books attributed to Luther: "In der Woche Zwier, (macht im Jahre 104), schadet weder ihm noch ihr". Translation: Twice a week (makes 104 times a year) hurts neither him nor her. Some variations of this rhyme have 'two or three times' or 'two till four times'. According to this book, this is 'loosely after Martin Luther', so not a literal quote, but supposedly based on something he said or wrote. As with many Luther quotes, it seems impossible to track down a source unfortunately. Maybe someone with access to Luther's complete works could find it, but it is equally possible that it is not from Luther at all. - Lindert (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The word you want is husbanding. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks awfully to all ! @ Lindert, the caricature in your book made me ROL & learn that our good neighbours also have what we think is a french prerogative : "l'esprit gaulois". They even have the equivalent of our "Mieux vaut une petite paille qui chatouille qu'un gros gourdin qui blesse" ("Better a small tickling straw than an offensive bludgeon") ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If Ayman al-Zawahiri were killed or caught, would it mean the end of al Qaeda?

Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand Al Qaeda does not have a monolithic structure with a single "supreme command". It appears to be a fairly loose confederation of structures operating in different areas. For example Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb which is active in parts of north Africa, does not seem to be subservient to the "original" Afghanistan based Al Qaeda. Roger (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Very doubtful. The killing of Osama bin Laden didn't do that. "Decapitating" al-Qaeda is a symbolic act, and it may even hamper their activities to a certain degree, but the group is decentralized enough that this is very unlikely to stop it. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

bin Laden was already retired, with no connection to the daily activities when he was killed. I suppose kiling node members could disrupt the activities of al Qaeda. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard Bin Laden was planning to do some large terrorist attack(s) on the U.S. on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, so I'm not sure if your statement is accurate.

There would have to be a bunch of them killed, and that's hard to accomplish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to this question, No, since al-Qaeda would simply get a new leader and since, as some other people here have already mentioned, al-Qaeda is now fairly decentralized. It isn't like Nazis and the Holocaust where killing Hitler early enough on might have stopped the whole thing or at least made it much less gruesome. Futurist110 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Can we replace the purely mathematical technical language and concept in dealing with philosophical logic which is not symbolic?

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE OF THIS

I ask of this so that I may have supporting views that logic in terms of philosophy is not numerical or mathematical in technical language or concept and thus accessible for all men imploring the basic rules of logic using language not symbols. Please answer directly. Thank You!

Logic is not only of philosophy it is also of mathematics and other fields, thus there is always technical language of a broad logic that if expounded will lead to purely mathematical or symbolic perspective like propositional logic. But there is philosophical logic which is not mathematical but uses artificial language. If so can we replace the purely mathemathihcal technical terms as modal, modal operators, propositional, etc., in dealing with philosophical logic which is not symbolic using philosophical language, jargon, or concepts instead of numerical since it is philosophical logic and if we include these mathematical terms it will lead to numerical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No. All you seem to be proposing is switching around math terms you don't like for philosophical terms that you do, but if the intent is for those terms to do the same thing, they're mathematical no matter what you call them. If, alternately, you just want to ask if you can start talking about philosophy in some new abstract paradigm, then sure -- but no one is obliged to listen to you or care (as we've pointed out repeatedly before). — Lomn 17:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only read the first half but i'm pretty sure our article on philosophy answers this. Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

The ethics of increasing medical school positions when # of residency positions guarantees many won't match

Reading this article, I have a question. Bolded, as it is kind of buried in the middle. It is a fact that in the United States the number of medical residency positions yearly available is less than the number of yearly graduates from medical school. Not only is this so, to exacerbate it, some of those residency positions in a given year get taken up by people who failed to get in on previous years, so there's a 100% chance that some people can't use the medical degree they just spent four years and probably a couple hundred thousand dollars on (for at least a year, and for some, ever). If this is the case, and if hospitals refuse to, for budgetary or otherwise reasons, increase the number of residency positions, where are sources from proponents stating how it is responsible for medical schools to not reduce the number of students they take in, knowing that if they continue to take more and more in, more than a handful will be screwed in four years? I know the business world has no moral compass, and taking more people's money is defined as the right thing to do, but one would hope that the medical education institution could, just possibly, have a set of ethics more human-centered. Once again, premises, as cited in the article: 1) There are fewer residency positions available than medical school graduates, 2) The relative number of residency positions is not increasing, or even holding ground, 3) The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has called for a 30% increase in medical school enrollment, or 5,000 more doctors each year. College universities have responded to this demand, with 18 new medical schools currently in the process of opening. I'd like to see the arguments justifying increasing the number of med school graduates given this state of affairs. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Is this really just a complaint masquerading as a question?) No idea of the answer, but I have a question of my own. Is it possible for American graduates to do residencies outside the USA? (Many other countries have doctor shortages.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the (arguable?) value judgment that it is not good to let people get hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt with a degree they cannot legally use, but I did ask for a specific thing: a source to people presenting the case for widening the discrepancy. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...within the USA. (Medicine is a global industry.) (And Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in a source stating why it is good to increase the number of medical school graduates in the USA while not increasing the number of residency positions in the USA. I apologize for not specifically qualifying my request. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, the question makes some suppostions which are not necessarily true. There are professions within the medicine that aren't doctors, but which such a degree could qualify someone for, such as a physician's assistant. The question supposes a conclusion (that medical schools are deliberately and intentionally screwing their students, or perhaps that they don't care how much they screw their students) that isn't necessarily so. In general, there is no direct attempt to provide exactly the same number of graduates each year as there are openings for them each year. The medical profession is not unique in this regard: many people don't get the exact job their degree seems to prepare them for. The question is asking for sources to a conclusion that isn't necessarily relevent or germaine to how medical schools operate. --Jayron32 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Increasing the number of graduates by 5,000 and opening another 18 medical schools, it seems like a legitimate thing to wonder (how is this feasible, given this is a system intended to put out doctors, and the number of openings for the next necessary step of becoming a doctor is not keeping in step with this decision). Of course they can not get a perfect match, but just because the balance can never be perfect is not a good justification for making the system more unbalanced. And while telling unmatched graduates to be physician's assistants when they went to medical school to become doctors is a good thing to do for someone that already found themself in the position of having paid all that time and money and finding themselves in need of doing something to cut their losses, it is not a good justification for increasing the number of medical school graduates by 5,000. Getting the number of graduates closer instead of further away from the number of residency positions seems like a more prudent approach. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see some reasonable causes for this situation: some physicist want to become researchers, which is also a fine occupation, but might not require a hand-on training with real patients. 2. They want to keep the process competitive, excluding the bottom x% from residency. 3. Residency is a limited resource, it's not viable to offer more places, matching the output of other institutions. 4. There is always a bottleneck somewhere, there is not way of match everything: qualified high-school graduates, medical school graduates, residency places, job market openings. Each of these fields will have different sizes each year. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are any of those the sourced, cited, and documented reasons the AAMC itself states as justification/motivation for pursuing an expansion in the size of the medical school graduate pool? Also, I wonder if there's data on the number of new entrants to medical school who have no plans whatsoever on becoming practicing clinicians for whom residency is essential. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As other's have said, I think you're approaching this the wrong way. Hinted at in that source and confirmed by other sources like [4], the AAMC don't just think there is a need for more medical graduates. They think there is a need for more doctors. In fact it sounds like they specifically asked for an increase in the number of graduate medical education positions as well. [5] mentions the need for growth needs to consider, amongst other things, the availability of such positions and both the first source I linked and [6] confirms the AAMC's view is it will be somewhat futile increasing the number of graduates without an increase in the number of GME positions. In other words, the AAMC doesn't seem to be calling for an increase in the number of graduates without increasing the number of GME positions, the questions premise seems to be false. (Note that none of the sources seem to comment on whether the current level is right or wrong, as others have mentioned your assumption that the current level of matching is a bad thing based in some random person's opinion may not be shared by the AAMC, there are plenty of reasons why some level of graduates without positions may be desirable. That being the case, an increase in the number of medical school places will need to predate an increase in the number of GME positions). Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider the assumption that each and every person entering medical school intends to pursue a career as a medical doctor. Are there fields (law, politics, education, research) where a medical degree might be very useful, even without having completed a residency? Next, reconsider the assumption that educational institutions should prohibit one student from learning simply because the next step beyond the purpose of that institution may involve another level of competition. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How does a person preach the gospel to someone else?

How does a person preach the gospel/evangelize/proselytize/tell people about Christianity with the intent of proselytism to someone else? Is there a specific method, or is the method largely variable and opinionated? How do you tell the difference between describing the beliefs of a Christian and sharing the beliefs of a Christian with the intent of proselytism? Is proselytism solely done by active missionaries, evangelists, and apologists? 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

It varies tremendously from one denomination to another and from one Christian to another. If there are "n" Christians in the world, you'll probably get a minimum of "n+1" possible answers to your question. If you want a Wikipedia article that covers this, Evangelism is a good place to start your research. --Jayron32 17:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't a person invite another person to a lake and ask that person to walk into the lake and immerse that person into the water and come out again as a Christian and invite that person to church? Wouldn't that be the simplest method? OK, I'm sure not many people would want to get their clothes wet, so the Christian evangelist can trick the non-Christian into jumping into the lake. :) Or maybe there is a more formal process of conversion. 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

Most Christians do not think baptism is what makes someone a Christian (or at least, it is not sufficient). Few would sympathize with 'tricking' people into a religion, and it doesn't work either (except of course, when apostasy means death, as in some Islamic countries). Anyway, a baptism should be accompanied by the correct formula and the baptized person must be sincere for the baptism to be valid. A formal process for 'becoming a Christian' exists in some denominations and varies in nature, in others it is simply the personal faith that counts. Regarding the original question, proselytism is certainly not confined to professional missionaries/evangelists, some even agree with Charles Spurgeon that "every Christian is either an evangelist or an imposter"; in other words, everyone Christian has a duty to share his/her faith. - Lindert (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Two biblical passages relevent to this discussion are Matthew 28:18-20 (the Great Commission): "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" (bold mine) and Acts 1:8, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (bold mine). How Christians share their faith will vary greatly from denomination to denomination, and from individual Christian to individual Christian. Some believe earnestly that it is OK to fund missionaries who proselytize, and that is acceptable to meet the teachings of Jesus, others believe that every Christian is individualy responsible for teaching the Gospel to unbelievers. Even among those who see it as a personal responsibility, there is a wide variance in methods and beliefs on how one is to share one's faith or proselytize. Also relevent is the Parable of the Sower, which comes with a direct explanation by Jesus of what it means: followers of Christ are responsible to spread his word, but are not responsible for forcing others to accept it. The word is given freely, and must be accepted freely. Not everyone will accept it. --Jayron32 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say a Methodist looks for a potential convert and tries to convert his non-Methodist friend to his specific denomination. Meanwhile, his non-Methodist Lutheran friend tries to convert the Methodist to his faith? So, the conversion process is not one-way but two-way. They are trying to convert each other, until the Methodist becomes a Lutheran and Lutheran becomes a Methodist, or one becomes the other by successful persuasion. 18:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.226.226 (talk)

Actually, that isn't seen as productive by most Christian faiths. Every major Christian churches accept people who join from other Christian faiths, but the efforts are generally focused on converting the unsaved. Now, some Christian faiths may try to re-convert those who have become apostate, but there isn't a need for a Methodist to "convert" a Lutheran, as they both would agree that the other is already a "true Christian". Certainly Methodist churches would welcome someone who used to attend a Lutheran church, and visa versa. Some denominations may require some additional steps to become full church members (many denominations require the Believer's baptism for example, or Catholic churches requiring Adult catechism for adult converts), but such acts are merely formal steps to become full members of a particular congregation, not a belief that the person's prior church is "invalid". --Jayron32 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Proselytizing between denominations is different. Christians tend to distinguish between denominations that have some different views but are basically Christian and those that are outright heretical. So for example, a Calvinist will often consider Methodists and Lutherans to be his/her brothers and sisters in Christ, but considers Catholicism to be wholesale heresy. Therefore he may debate Lutherans to convince them, but does not consider this essential, but he will proselytize to Catholics, because they are not true Christians from his viewpoint. - Lindert (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that's quite correct. Most of the denominations you cite focus on individual salvation, either in the form of Synergism (salvation of choice) or Monergism (predestination) which is based on the personal relationship with God, and not with the particular congregation one worships in. Calvinist and Lutherans alike don't claim that no member of a Catholic church is to be saved; I've never heard such a claim before from either denomination. Instead, there is nothing in being a member of a Catholic church that gives Catholics automatic salvation in the absense of the personal salvation. The Catholic position is a but more complex on the matter, but from the point of view of most of the mainline and evangelical protestant denominations, there isn't any recognition that any one particular Christian faith is a barrier to salvation. Many protestants may feel that the specific teachings and doctrine of the Catholic church are not effective in producing the sort of personal salvation that the recognize as valid, but that doesn't mean that that personal salvation cannot occur in the context of Catholicism. The Protestant beef is not with the Catholic church members, per se, it is with the Catholic heirarchy and doctrine, an important distinction to make. --Jayron32 18:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that in the Catholic example, the perceived invalidity of other churches is a significant part of it. While most Catholics wouldn't attempt to evangelize Protestants or other Christians, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is still seen as holding true, even if the interpretation of that phrase isn't always as strict as outside observers might think. The claim of the Catholic Church to authority is inherently apostolic, so the validity or not of a given group of clergy (and thus the sacraments they dispense) isn't dependent on actual orthodoxy or -praxy, or lack thereof, as much as it is by whether or not the chain of ordination has been broken by formal excommunication or something as simple as primitivist rebels who were never interested in such ordination. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You are right, my answer was too simplistic. They would recognize that some Catholics may be saved, but not if they believe all that Rome teaches. Only if they are very ignorant of what their church teaches. The Heidelberg Catechism calls the mass, which is the central aspect of Catholic soteriology, an 'accursed idolatry', and Luther calls it 'the true and chief abomination and the basis of all blasphemy in the papacy.'. - Lindert (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paradoxically, those protestants also profess in Sola fide and Sola gratia, which holds that justification is gained through faith alone, and salvation comes through God's grace alone, which would mean that salvation is fully availible to Catholics worshiping in a Catholic church and following Catholic teachings, but the converse is not true. Also, the Catholic position is not as strict as Evanh2008 makes it out to be. See Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which while it doesn't represent a full acceptance of the Five solae by Catholicism, is an important ecumenical agreement by the Catholic church in recognizing that protestantism is not equivalent to apostasy. However, from the protestant point of view, you cannot downplay that the difference is still a key one: the Protestants may profess that the Catholic doctrine and practices are really bad at producing what they see as true Christians, but that doesn't mean that salvation is unavailible to full Catholics. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, can a non-Christian study a denominational theology and history and the Bible and explain these concepts to another non-Christian without intent of proselytism? How would that be different from a Christian of a specific denomination proselytizing non-Christians? How do non-denominational Christians proselytize when they are not affiliated with a specific denomination and therefore hold no ties from all the others? What kind of Bible would a non-denominational Christian read? What would be a non-denominational Christian Bible? 140.254.226.226 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the focus is on proseyltizing, as though the heart of the person contaminates the information they provide. Are Christians who share their faith proselytizing? Yes, but many, if not most, Christians would view their entire lives (speech and actions) as being a form of proselytizing; they are supposed to live a life which in every aspect of their being points others to the Christian faith. So, it isn't that a Christian who discusses their faith with you is somehow trying to convert you. A Christian in the same room as you merely sitting next to you is trying to convert you. To deny that is to deny several key teachings of Christ. It doesn't mean that said Christian is trying to force anything on you, or to coerce you, or whatever. But there is no magic involved. You can't "catch" Christianity like its a disease merely because a Christian discussed their faith with you. And many people can and do study Christian theology without being Christians themselves. I had a Comparative religion teacher in college who was himself Jewish. One can intellectually understand any aspect of any theology of any Christian denomination without believing in it. You can be taught about Christian theology without being converted to Christianity upon hearing it. Again, theology is not a magic spell that will be cast upon you if a Christian teaches you about their faith. It doesn't work like that. To answer your second batch of question, if you are interested in non-denominational Christianity, see Nondenominational Christianity for some examples. There also aren't denomination specific Bibles, at least among non-Catholic Churches. Catholics use a different version of the bible than Protestants do, but only slightly so, and both Catholics and Protestants use multiple different translations. Modern English Bible translations will give you a wealth of different translations. I think that most Catholic translations decend from the Douay–Rheims Bible, which is itself a secondary translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible, while most protestant translations in English decend from the King James Bible, which was translated directly from the source languages (Greek and Hebrew). But there are several English translations endorsed by the Catholic Church and by various Protestant denominations which are not necessarily direct decendants of either the DR or KJ versions. --Jayron32 19:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A non-Christian can study denominational theology and history and the Bible, but proselytizing is different from simply explaining theology in that proselytism calls someone to repentance and faith. It exhorts someone to do/believe something, in contrast to mere explanation. Most Bible translations are not strictly denominational, but many are done by a certain stream of Christian scholars. Many Christians, both denominational and non-denominational, choose a translation based on accuracy and readability, and may make use of multiple translations as well. Some denominations use only one translations, most notably the King James Only movement. - Lindert (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, just to make a little quibble: there are different forms and approaches to proselytizing. Many Christians would view mere testimony as a form of proselytizing: the goal of explaining to others your own faith is that they will come to accept that faith. It is an overt act of proselytism, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it exhorts or coerces the hearer to any direct action. You can proselytize without being rude or demeaning or disrespectful of the listener. If I, as a Christian, explain my beliefs using the exact same words as a non-believer, though my intent may be different than the non-believer, it doesn't make my explanation an exhortation or a coersion. Certainly, the idea of the mad lunatic standing on the college campus calling everyone sinners and telling them all they are going to go to hell is an image we have of proselytizing, but it also isn't what I would call how the majority of Christians spread their faith. --Jayron32 19:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about coercion. One can simply share his testimony without an exhortation, but that is not how Paul did it. He preached to pagans in Athens saying "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness". To me that sounds closer to that 'madman' on the college campus. Stephen was not afraid of being rude either and debated the Jews in their own synagogue, until they became angry and stoned him to death. - Lindert (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Jayron32 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For "what Bible would a non-denominational Christian use?", I think it's worth noting one big point of distinction: "non-denominational" is almost always some flavor of "Protestant" (as contrasted with Catholic, Orthodox), and so it's likely going to be a Bible with the Protestant Biblical canon, i.e. 66 books, no Apocrypha. — Lomn 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, how do you make a person repent when he or she may not know what to repent for or what the word "repent" means or live a Christian life of prayer, day in and day out? And how do you *know* that person has *truly* repented? And how do you *know* if a person is genuine about the faith and put a lifetime commitment to it? 140.254.226.226 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No one makes a person repent. The believer spreads the word, the Holy Spirit convicts, and people of their own volition choose to repent or not. To go to the source text, please read the Parable of the Tares. Christians are specifically and directly forbidden from attempting to sort out the "true believers" from the fakers. Indeed, doing so may actually work to drive people away from the faith. From the point of view of many Christians, the actual salvation of an individual Christian is between that Christian and God. How do I know that I am saved? I have a right relationship with God and know in my heart that I am. How do I know that anyone else is saved? I don't. I can't know the true beliefs of any other person, so there's no point in trying. It isn't our business to make those decisions on Earth: If someone says and acts like they are saved, then we treat them as if they are. If they weren't, God will sort it out in the end (the moral behind the Parable of the Tares). --Jayron32 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't. You have to trust that God, who knows his own, will know them at the Day of Judgment. Matthew 7:1-3, and many of the Parables refer to the sorting that will take place then (wheat and tares, for example). --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make a person repent, you simply give them the information they need to make the right decision - why, and how. Take it slowly, don't just dump a lot of information onto them. Do a Bible study with them, study key points together, and let them come to the right conclusions on their own. You can see whether a person has repented or not, by how they live, are they willing to put God's will first in their lives, or do they still do as they please. To repent is to be obedient, among other things. So, by their repentance do you know that they are genuine. Once they have repented, they can be baptised as an outward sign of their commitment to God. Once they have been baptised, they can receive the Holy Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Book on feminism/gender equality?

I've always had the opinion that in modern times and in Western nations, there isn't a great deal of difference in the freedoms and privileges granted to men and women. I would like to read something that argues in favor of the opposite conclusion: that while big strides have been made in advancing gender equality, there still remains a substantial gulf to close in cultural/political/social inequity. I'm hoping to excise prejudices and biases that I've built up. Any recommendations? 65.92.7.148 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Many people consider the cause for gender equality is still very much a work in progress, even in modern times and in Western nations. You could start with the article, Feminism. Move on to the articles linked to that, then pick texts from Feminism#Further reading that suit your specific interests. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell for some perhaps surprising discussion of the ways men are not well-served by traditional gender roles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About a 2 hour read considering every potential: but pretty much everything one needs to know including:

• This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers).

And, Settling for a man in a feminist world? Happy Valentine's Day!,[7],[8],[9],[10],[11], Schlafly see also Marc Rudov (or summary) and clips of the original Tom Leykis show, and remember what women will pay for and wait in line for has more to do with Fifty Shades of Grey and Twlight (see Frank Langella comments on how timeless women's lust/need is for men to control than anything you may have been brainwashed into believing. Most experiences agree with the WSJ piece:

• "she found that most wanted a mate they could "look up to" or "admire"--and didn't think they could admire a man who was less educated than they were. During a talk I recently gave to a women's group in San Francisco, an audience member said, "I want him to respect what I know, but I also want him to know just a little more than me." One of my students once told me, "it's exciting to be a bit in awe of a guy." For a century, women have binged on romance novels that encouraged them to associate intimidation with infatuation; it's no wonder that this emotional hangover still lingers."

To loosely quote Mr. Taranto . . . if you really insist on it . . . Happy excising.Marketdiamond (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bechdel test is interesting, as it is a more-or-less objective way of comparing how men and women are depicted in fiction. Basically, a work of fiction passes the Bechdel test if, at some point, two female characters talk to each other about something other than men. It passes the reverse Bechdel test if, at some point, two male characters talk to each other about something other than women. When people apply these tests to - say - recent Oscar nominees, they tend to find that almost all films pass the reverse Bechdel test, but only a relatively small number (maybe a third or a half) pass the Bechdel test - a surprising number don't even have two significant female characters. Trying to find objective ways of looking at gender bias is important as it helps to avoid confirmation bias, which is the tendency to be more likely to notice evidence that confirms your existing beliefs. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alien nationals in a warfaring country in the early modern era?

In the 20th century, I know that when a country declares war, foreigners of the nation that country has declared war on, and who are residents in the enemy country, are often interned: such as for example when the Japanese residents in the USA were interned during the WWII. My question is: how was the custom regarding residents from enemy countries during the 1600-1800 era? What happened with, say, people from France who were living in Brussels in the Austrian Netherlands during the War of the Austrian succession? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you go back that far, then the concept of a nation state (and therefore nationality) didn't really exist in Europe. Allegiances were based more along ethnic and linguistic lines, rather than national lines. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think interning foreigners in wartime is a modern concept. In WWI there was still a distinct German community in London - none were interned as far as I know, but German shopkeepers suffered at the hands of angry mobs after the first Zeppelin raids. Of course, our own dear King was a bit on the Germanic side, but a quick name-change kept everybody happy. During the Napoleonic Wars, there were large French Huguenot communities in London and other cities, who, as far as I can tell, went unmolested. Of course, the Huguenots were no friends of the French establishment, be it royal, revolutionary or imperial. British Admiral James Gambier was a Huguenot or at least of descended from one. More in Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a different story here in Australia, Alan: [12] -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a surprise - I'll dig a bit more into the UK story. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that German and Austro-Hungarian males of military age were interned in the UK in WWI.[13] One of the main camps was at Alexandra Palace. Alansplodge (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the centuries prior to the period you are asking about, foreigners could be rounded up for questioning, and possibly imprisoned or expelled; but if they weren't doing anything shady, they might be left alone. For example, chapter 41 of the Magna Carta says "All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too." So, merchants were detained during times of war, but ideally they were treated well. I can recall several other medieval examples; the Muslim governor of Jerusalem expelled all the Christians when the First Crusade arrived there, just in case they collaborated with the crusaders, for one. The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages by T. H. Lloyd talks about Flemish and English merchants during times of war between England, France, and Flanders in the 13th and 14th centuries. Jews were periodically expelled but usually not because of war (more because the people who owed debts to them no longer felt like paying them). In extreme cases (such as the Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople), merchants were attacked and killed. More towards the era you are asking about, there is, for example, the Aliens Act 1793, which regulated French inhabitants of England during the Revolutionary and later Napoleonic Wars. Similar acts were passed in the US - the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in particular ("whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government...all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies"). But as mentioned above, before the modern concept of the "nation state", the concept of a "foreign national" wasn't very clearly defined either. Probably most often, nothing would happen to foreigners at all, as long as they weren't spying or actively aiding the enemy country. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the answers correct, basically: the authorities simply did not care about those people? --Aciram (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

unknown ranks

I'm trying to figure out the ranks of these two people who were among the fatalities in the 2012 Aurora shooting. One is Jonathan T. Blunk. The other is Rebecca Wingo. (Blunk was serving in the U.S. Navy. Wingo was serving in the U.S. Air Force.) If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My normal resource for this sort of thing is the Department of Veterans Affairs "Grave Locator" database. Blunk is in there, but no rank is given (which strikes me as odd). Wingo is not (I'm not sure if that's odd or not). Anyway, nothing useful there, I suppose, but I thought I'd just report my progress and lack thereof. --22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can call it a reliable source, but this link from a social networking site lists Wingo's rank as E-5. Dalliance (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.gisearch.com/id135265

Thank you for finding Wingo's rank. But I'm still trying to find out Blunk's rank.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)